Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes.The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Libertas | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Note: there is some question as to the gender of this user, who has often been referred to as "he" without objection until recently. For that reason, "she" is used here.

Libertas has persistently and willfully engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and other deliberately disruptive behavior designed to incite conflict (in other words, trolling) in response to disagreements with other editors, where he makes strongly POV edits and refuses to compromise. She also constantly accuses others of trolling and making personal attacks, usually with little justification.

There are also unresolved questions of possible sockpuppetry.

The purpose of this RFC is emphatically not to re-hash the merits of the Soviet Union dispute, but to raise concerns about a persistent and willful pattern of behavior, across several articles and towards several users.

Description

Libertas first appeared on Wikipedia on December 18, and immediately began editing almost exclusively on several articles which had previously been major points of dispute between Reithy and Chuck F (the former has since been banned by Jimbo, the latter is the subject of a pending Request for Arbitration). She has been accused of being a sock of Chuck or Reithy and has denied it, despite making some very similar edits to Ron Paul.

At first, her editing was restricted primarily to Ron Paul, where they sometimes bordered on POV, but compromises were mostly worked out, primarily with Radicalsubversiv. On December 26, she began an effort to insert a strongly anti-communist POV into Soviet Union, declaring the article a "whitewash." This turned into an extensive and heated dispute which twice resulted in the protection of the page. On the talk page and elsewhere, Libertas turned to extensive personal attacks and other trolling. she showed little interest in working towards consensus, preferring to make accusations towards other users, frequently regarding unrelated edits or individual user's political beliefs (red-baiting).

Much of this was in reaction to a link 172 posted to an article from UPI, a newswire owned by the Unification Church. Though the dispute had nothing to do with UPI or the Moonies, Libertas seized on it and began badgering 172 and several others on the subject, accusing them of being Moonies and raising doubts about their credibility as editors.

After Libertas drove one administrator into resigning and taking a Wikivacation, drove several editors away from the article, and wore down 172's resolve on a key matter of dispute, a compromise was finally reached on Soviet Union. Libertas immediately picked a fight over the grammar of a sentence, and resumed making personal attacks on the talk page. She then moved on to trolling Radicalsubversiv on a totally unrelated VfD page and making blatantly POV edits to the articles on both major U.S. political parties.

There is quite a lot of evidence accumulated below, although it is a relatively small sampling of Libertas's involvement in various disputes. Readers might want to pay particular attention to a personal attack comparing a user to Nazis, a personal attack calling another user a Stalinist, and the uploading of an image of Pinocchio for the sole purpose of accusing yet another user of lying.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Uncategorized personal attacks

1. To Paranoid: "Ask me to have to respect for the wall-builders and gulag-operators and politburo special lane drivers and I spit in your eye (figuratively at least!), you get the same treatment in history as Nazi Germany, a similarly evil regime." [1]
2. To Radicalsubversiv: "Undergraduate opinion while welcome should be carefully explained so as to not lose reader interest." [2]
3. Refers to Cmapm as "Crapr" [3] (Possibly a confusion over transliteration, see talk.)

Uncategorized false accusations against other users

1. Accusing Paranoid of trolling: [4]
2. Accusing Radicalsubversiv of being Chuck and Reithy: [5]
3. Accusing 172 of being Radicalsubversiv: [6]
4. Accusing 172 of personal attacks for seeking assistance in dealing with Libertas's behavior: [7]
5. Accusing 172 and Radicalsubversiv of trolling: [8]
6. Suggests (to 172) that Mirv is controlled by 172 [9]
7. Directly accuses Mirv of acting improperly in protecting Soviet Union: [10]
8. Accuses Radicalsubversiv of trolling for removing unnecessary linebreaks from an article she created [11]
9. Accuses 172 of sending rude e-mails, which she refuses to produce [12]. Asks 172 if he wants to her to "post it up here for all to see?" Refuses to do so when 172 agrees.
10. Accuses Che y Marijuana of violating username policy, apparently in response to that user disagreeing with her on Talk:Soviet Union. [13]. Then, in response to Che's request to leave him alone: "stop trolling please" [14]
11. Repeatedly calls Radicalsubversiv a troll and tells him to "grow up" in response to a request that she add appropriate copyright tags to the images she has uploaded (none of which have any kind of source information). [15], [16], [17], [18],
12. Accuses Radicalsubversiv of "stalking and harassing", calling it "creepy, unnecessary, and politically motivated" [19]

Violation of three-revert rule

1. Violates three-revert rule on History of post-Soviet Russia ([20], [21], [22], [23]), then removes note from Radicalsubversiv warning him about it: [24]. Is blocked by Pakaran.
2. Posts note accusing Pakaron of bias in enforcing the 3RR: [25]. When Pakaran answers, posts another note falsely accusing him of violating policy: [26].
3. Posts a note asking Pakaran to block 172 for unspecified violations of unrelated and unfinished Request for arbitration: [27]

UPI/Moonie trolling

1. "Your approach seems to be when in a hole, keep digging. I can only encourage you." [28]
2. "Can I ask whether you quoted from UPI before in your extensive Wikipedia work and if so how many times?" [29]
3. "Rev Moon sends his regards" [30]
4. "I have exposed 172 as a complete academic fraud (he's a full-time researcher or so he says, I hate to think which taxpayer funded sinecure he has) and think that's as close to a victory as I'll have. Check out how many sleepy leftists he's been desperately trying to rouse from their Festivus slumber to help slap me down. What a joke. It is very sad that Soviet nostalgics are determining the content of the Soviet Union article. I'm glad at least the Nazi article seems neutral." [31]
5. To Radicalsubversiv, w/o context: "Rev Moon thanks you" [32]
6. Uploaded a new image, Image:Revmoongorby.gif, of Moon, which he places on his user page, and suggests for inclusion in Soviet Union ([33]).
7. "Russia isn't politically unstable, suggest you check with UPI/Rev. Moon to find out" (summary for unrelated edit): [34]
8. "the quote is very relevant and apt, not sure what Rev Moon thinks" (summary for unrelated edit) [35]
9. "I'd have to check those numbers with Reverend Moon" [36]
10. Moves discussion of Moonie issue from her talk page to Talk:Soviet Union for the purpose of posting a response attacking 172's credibility. [37]
11. "I already have more credibility than 172 who holds himself out as a full-time researcher and asserts some divine right to have his view prevail here. Like Rev Moon, his claim to divinity seems unsupported by the facts." [38]
12. To Radicalsubversiv, in response to discussion of a possible RFC: "Not content with my assertion that you're a Stalinist, now you prove it, organizing a show trial and all. Good job. Rev. Moon would be proud." [39]

Possible sockpuppet vandalism

1. A new user, JackStack vandalizes 172's user page with a reference to Moon. User makes no further edits.

Miscellaneous disruptive behavior

1. Trolling Evercat by repeatedly requesting Evercat remove a comment from his userpage, even after he refuses. Removes request to stop trolling. Note that Libertas's userpage is full of far more incendiary comments. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].
2. Asks Everking not to protect Soviet Union, which is clearly the subject of a heated edit war: [46]
3. Adding "evidence" concerning Soviet Union dispute in unrelated 172 arbitration case: [47], [48]
4. Thanks Evercat for taking a Wikivacation provoked by her own abusive behavior: [49]
5. Asks Joy Stovall to unprotect Soviet Union despite no progress having been made toward consensus. [50]
6. Repeatedly asks 172 to take a break from editing Soviet Union ([51], [52]), then refuses to take 172 up on his offer ([53]) for both to do so, insisting that such a deal also include 172's "close associates" ([54])
7. To Metahacker: "Metahacker, I think it's high time the Republican Party article cease being a POV fest. I'll back you up on any changes of a neutralizing kind. Let's roll." [55]
8. After his blatantly POV edits to Republican Party (United States) are not accepted, creates Republican Party(Temp) and adds a link to it from disambiguation page Republican Party

Chronology of unacceptable behavior on Talk:Soviet Union

1. Raises unrelated editing by Paranoid: "I also note Paranoid's interest in the Vagina article where his main contribution has been excitedly noting the existence of Thai pingpong ball tricks. If possible, his defense of Stalin lowers his credibility further." [56]
2. Calls Paranoid a "sexist buffoon": [57]
3. "Wikipedia is great, we have a Stalinist sentry guarding Mother Russia's page. A Stalinist who writes hatefully about women, but in all other respects believes in socialist equality and who claims great wealth but is unwilling to implement his own distribution of wealth. Anyway, Stalin also didn't like debating and favored more drastic persuasion methods so I feel honored you indulge me." Also, in response to disagreement of the use of the word "totalitarian", says "Denying totalitarianism governed the USSR is like denying it governed Nazi Germany. Not worth discussing." [58]
4. "You can do stand up comedy in my gulag anyday, comrade." [59]
5. Again raises unrelated editing by Paranoid, concluding "shame on you": [60]
6. Sarcastic comment referring to other users as Stalinists: [61]
7. Suggests disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "Try removing the totalitarian reference and calling it slang on the Nazi Germany page, I dare you." [62]
8. Makes a petty comment concerning an obvious but minor misstatement by 172, then twice reverts 172's attempt to correct it: [63], [64], [65])
9. To 172, referring to an unrelated arbitration case: "Are all those who object to your conduct in your arbitration case wrong? I don't think so." [66]
10. "Neutrality does not mean making this article capable of being approved by a residual Politburo" [67]
11. Adds a new section to the talk page exclusively for the purpose of raising 172's arbitration case, suggesting that it "indicates the credibility of 172" [68]
12. Falsely claims "I have not attacked 172 personally" [69]
13. Changes 172's comments [70]
14. Dredges up obscure article for the purpose of alleging that a source 172 cited is a Marxist. Concludes "There are two possibilities, 172 knew Cohen was a Marxist and lied about it or 172 did not know Cohen was a Marxist. I don't know which, and do not wish to speculate, and want to assume good faith, but I do know that 172's pretence at good scholarship must surely now come to an end." [71] Duplicates it on 172's talk page, after already posting a link there, to rub it in: [72] Uploads a new image, Image:Pinocchio.jpg, exclusively for the purpose of accusing 172 of lying.
15. Re-posts archived comments 172 made many months ago because they contain personal attacks (nothing germane to the actual dispute). [73], [74]
16. Reverts a cosmetic grammatical change to the new compromise version without offering a rationale: [75]. When reverted, rewrites paragraph so as to repeat disputed claim that Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime throughout its history: [76]. Finally commenting on talk, he accuses other editors of trolling and having an ulterior motive without addressing the substance of his edits: [77]. Follows up with an edit summarized as "Once more unto the breach": [78].

Trolling of VfD/Andrew Villeneuve

1. Posts a note to the talk page of Seanorthwest, the subject of an article Radicalsubversiv has proposed deleting: "Radicalsubversiv is constantly tell others to calm down after initiating personal attacks and testosterone driven aggression against others. I'm sorry he's picked you as his next victim." He also disingenously tells Villeneuve he appreciates his activism and pledges to campaign against deletion.
2. Libertas begins adding unsourced information of dubious neutrality to the article, a subject totally foreign to all of his other editing ([79])
3. Votes Keep on the VfD, making several false comments about the subject matter (I suspect even Villeneuve would agree that he did not "lead opposition statewide" to the latest Eyman initiative) [80]
4. Posts a lengthy diatribe suggesting, without evidence, that Radicalsubversiv listed the article for deletion because of some mysterious sectarian ulterior motive: "it is perhaps worth mentioning that Radical comes from a different stripe of Washington leftist than Villeneuve does. Radical is clearly to the right of Villeneuve, with the former supporting Dean or Kerry and the latter perhaps supporting Nader. While I don't see much difference between them, those voting should be aware of the huge differences within the left and the venom with which they are conducted. ... it is my observation that such spats within the far left are particularly common. I believe therefore that Radicalsubversiv's agenda makes him incapable of approaching this deletion from a NPOV perspective. It is unhealthy for those with personal agenda to be proposing the deletion of opponents' pages." She also posts a totally unrelated letter to the editor Radicalsubversiv wrote to a New England weekly in the Fall of 2001, calling it "An example of this kind of bitter internal left dispute is below published in a leftist publication where they call each other fraudsters, liars, apologists, Trotskyists, et al" [81], [82]
5. Posts a note goading Radicalsubversiv, calling him "JudgeRad" [83]
6. Reverts Radical's efforts to move the unrelated personal accusations to below the VfD voting: [84]. Responds: "And you admit to supporting Howard Dean, which I assume means you had a different view to Villeneuve and were political rivals to that extent. The letter demonstrated merely the venom of exchanges within the left and the personal hatreds that emerge within it." [85]
7. Posts notes lobbying four users who have already voted on the VfD to change their votes. [86], [87], [88], [89]
8. Having previously accused Radicalsubversiv of listing the article because his politics are supposedly further than left than Seanorthwest's, Libertas now changes tacks in a note urging Wyss to change his VfD vote: "People in the mainstream parties (like Radicalsubversiv) don't like it because direct citizens' power make them less relevant. ... So yes, to answer your question I think there are partisan motivations to the deletion proposal (although I have no idea about those voting). Radicalsubversiv has a clear motivation to disparage Villeneuve and is not acting neutrally in my view, and is not capable of doing so on an issue so close to home."
9. Argues that Mattley should recuse himself from the VfD debate because of his politics: "Given your user page discloses an interest in British trade unions and revolutionary theory, you would indeed know. Please recuse yourself from this decision, left-wing activists, justice must be done and seen to be done. This is indeed a vendetta deletion proposal, it shouldn't be happening at all."
10. Adds new "sections" to the VfD listing, screwing up the page's formatting. Adds further untrue claims about Villeneuve and more claims of a vendetta on Radicalsubversiv's part. Posts a long chunk from the deletion policy for no reason and argues that the vote should be stopped. [90], [91]
11. "Radical, upset with Villeneuve due to byzantine tensions within the extreme left has proposed the deletion of this page." [92]

POV editing

1. Ron Paul: [93], [94], [95]
2. Soviet Union: [96], [97], [98],
3. Democratic centralism: [99],
4. Communist Party of the Soviet Union: [100]
5. Democratic Party (United States): [101]
6. Republican Party (United States): [102], [103], [104] (revert w/ misleading edit summary)
7. Andrew Villeneuve: [105]

Applicable policies

Primarily:

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
3. Wikipedia:Civility
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. 19:27, 27 Dec 2004: 172 points Libertas to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Libertas responds that she is "just returning fire."
2. 07:32, 30 Dec 2004: 172 posts a note suggesting that all parties can work together in good faith to resolve differences over Soviet Union.
3. 16:33, 31 Dec 2004: Improv asks Libertas to avoid personal attacks. Libertas responds: "I think I'm entitled to [...] challenge his credibility".
4. 23:39, 31 Dec 2004: Radicalsubversiv warns Libertas about trolling and making disingenous comments in response to her actions on the Moonie issue. Libertas responds with an edit summarized as "Rev Moon speaks out", discussing Radicalsubversiv's personal politics, 172's alleged lack of credibility, but also saying "I won't be writing on Russia related subjects, at least for a while" (which she obviously continues to do). She quickly adds: "Rev Moon thanks you"
5. 05:08, 1 Jan 2005: Responding to Libertas accusing him of being a Stalinist, Radicalsubversiv asks Libertas to refrain from personal attacks.
6. 00:40, 3 Jan 2005: Fred Bauder, who disagrees with 172's edits on Soviet Union, tells Libertas "Reverting is bad form. What is needed is decent references, so if you want to work on this start hitting the books and taking notes." Paranoid agrees with Fred and also says "Seriously, it's very easy to demonise people you disagree with, but I hope we will all avoid it in this particular debate. And let's work constructively and respectfully on this topic."
7. 11:39, 3 Jan 2005: Fred posts another note, saying: "Let's wait a while, see who is seriously involved in editing regarding these issues, and if discussions lead to an impasse, try negotiation a a group. I see movement from 172. I think he is trying to follow the requirements of the arbitration, but at this point a bit of patience might be needed as he adjusts. Meantime, if you could find some good references regarding the elements that made up Soviet totaliarianism, I would appreciate it."
8. 06:08, 4 Jan 2005: Saxifrage politely inquires about whether Libertas was responsible for anonymous edits to Soviet Union and User:Evercat. Libertas denies the accusation, and further accuses Saxifrage of being a Marxist. In the ensuing discussion, Saxifrage writes: "your writing so far has been defensive and inflammatory, which can easily get you dismissed as a troll by users who don't have the time to look for genuine concerns that are not presented clearly. If you would like to avoid being thought a troll in the future, you might consider avoiding defensive and inflammatory writing so that your meaning (which is the important part, after all, right?) doesn't get lost in the fray. You may wish to read the article Assume good faith."
9. 10:02, 5 Jan 2005: Radicalsubversiv warns Libertas about his behavior: "This is your last warning: stop engaging in personal attacks, trolling, and other disruptive behaviors. If you continue I will pursue dispute resolution methods up to and including arbitration. I refer specifically to your use of Talk:Soviet Union as a forum for attacking 172, rather than working to resolve disputes as to the article content (the latest example of which being this), in addition to earlier actions which I have previously brought to your attention." In the ensuing discussion, Libertas accuses Radicalsubversiv of being about to abuse admin powers he doesn't have, vaguely threatens to "ensure you are held accountable, as Evercat was", and again raises Radicalsubversiv's leftist politics and his and Evercat's ages. She also asks for advice. Radicalsubversiv advises him to either abandon the Soviet Union dispute or to "remove all of your comments on that talk page which do not pertain directly to the article's content". Libertas agrees and does so, but resumes the same behavior the next day.
10. 21:08, 5 Jan 2005: In response to insulting comments on his talk page, Saxifrage posts a note to Libertas: "Wikipedia editors have to Assume good faith and you don't. I know, from having spoken civilly with you, that you have good intentions for the improvement of Wikipedia (however misguided I believe your methods). I don't know how many others who've met you here would agree, however, because that good intention is hidden behind your penchant for lashing out and decrying every slight you perceive. You wont get anywhere in a consensus-founded community like Wikipedia unless you learn to see that some slights you perceive are accidental and not a result of malice. ... (If you'll notice, I have so far ignored your implications about my personal resilience to opposition, and the possible implication that you might have intended that I am pig-like. I perceive those as slights, but they aren't relevant except for this example so I ignore them otherwise.)" Adds: "The amount of persecution that you claim is far more than sufficient to request Arbitration. That you continue to wage verbal war in Talk pages when you should be requesting Arbitration leads me to conclude that you either have no case, or just like arguing."
11. 04:04, 6 Jan 2005: In response to Libertas's disruptive editing of a proposed compromise on Soviet Union, 172 writes: "We are still having a discussion on the words "totalitarian" and "dictatorship" on Talk:Soviet Union. Adding objectionable information to the temp page based on LOC text is not productive. Let's wait to see how the discussion progresses before making any controversial changes to the temp page." Libertas again inserts the words without discussion.
12. 10:02, 7 Jan 2005: In response to a list of alleged insults Libertas has placed on his talk page: Dbachmann writes: "stumbling on your Talk page, I beg to respectfully take issue with your characterisation of WP, and your collection of accusations against you. In my personal experience, WP is endowed with people from all corners of the political spectrum, including, granted, 'festive leftists', I suppose. I would just like to point out that your collection looks vindictive, while most of the comments you list are of course out of context, and it is impossible to say whether they were justified or not"
13. 13:03, 8 Jan 2005: On the Villeneuve VFD, Mattley responds to Libertas: "You on the other hand have continually cast aspersions on other users and made ridiculous ad hominem attacks on users who do not differ from you in politics. You are bullying other users. Please mend your ways."

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. RadicalSubversiv E 03:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. I so certify. Some of the above may be overstated, but there are substantial violations of policy too. Note that I have chatted with this user on a limited subset of the topics, and was inclined to give Libertas benefit of the doubt. I am disappointed to see that the problem is wider than I thought, and includes much more problematic behavior than I initially saw. --Improv 12:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improv, can you please explain how you tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me. I believe you tried and succeeded to resolve our pretty minor dispute on IRC and we both walked away happy. Have I missed something? Libertas Fair and Balanced

I reply on the discussion page of this article. --Improv 18:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. I so certify. My significant attempt to resolve what I saw as a pattern of (deliberate or otherwise) disruptive behaviour is documented above (points 8 and 10) and in this diff (second paragraph). However, I want to say that I disagree with the allegation of being a sockpuppet (though not possibly sockpuppeting JackStack) and deliberate trolling; see talk page. (Note that I did make a half-assed attempt at intervention on IRC, but this was before I became aware of any pattern. I was merely trying to dissuade [what seemed to me] a confused newbie from accusing another user of "stalking" for doing an IP trace to determine the possibility of Chuck F or Reithy sockpuppeting as Libertas. I was regrettably not as patient as I could have been.) My successful attempt to resolve with Libertas my own confusion over the anonymous edits to User:Evercat are not germane beyond their precipitation of my separate attempt to address Libertas' behaviour in point 8 above.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --Che y Marijuana 11:58, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
2. What Improv said, the problem may be slightly overstated but the diffs speak for themselves, there's a huge problem here. --fvw* 13:42, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
3. I encountered User:Libertas on the Democratic centralism article [106]. I reverted her changes as pov and asked that she talk first; she re-reverted and asserted in Summary that I'd reverted for no reason and talked-not (not w/ me; did w/ User:Mikkalai). She also characterized her changes as at RadicalSubversiv Es request, which I find doubtful. I've looked at many of User:Libertas's changes and at many of the links offered on this page and it's ugly; an obvious POV-warrior — Apparently one who is amazing familiar with Wikipedia for one so "new." Davenbelle 20:38, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
4. Yep. Note that although I'm mentioned once or twice above, I haven't been directly involved in disputes with this user. I stumbled across some comments she made on a vfd yesterday and responded to those. That's been my only involvement, (aside from looking up the pages and references most relevant to this RfC) and I wouldn't have said it amounted to attempting to attempting to resolve the dispute. Aside from that niggle, this is a fair and accurate summary. Good luck! Mattley 22:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. 172 09:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. unacceptable behviour. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response

The claims above represent a highly partisan and spiteful attack on a user with a different political perspective than those accusing her. The accuser's name "Radical subversive" indicates the politics of the person involved, radical and subversive. He self-identifies as a person incapable of producing NPOV. This infects this RFC in a manner that requires readers to exercise great caution.

To be so accused by a person identifying in that manner as a radical subversive is worn like a badge of honor.

Much of his claims as I will demonstrate are taken out of context, is part-truth or blatant falsehood. All of his claims are motivated by malice and revenge.

I will systematically review and respond to each claim and refer readers to the RFC on Radicalsubversiv which details a pattern of misconduct worthy of review.

Libertas 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Libertas had better recognize she is not just attacked by Radicalsubversive. She is accused of misbehaviour by three editors, with (as of now) seven other editors acknowledging that the allegations are justified. In the light of this, she had better address the points made than shooting the messenger. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)